In October 2020, SAC Co-Coordinators facilitated two virtual luncheons. EMCC Faculty and staff had to opportunity to review ILO and CLO data. The goal was to facilitate meaningful conversations about student learning.
This year, the Psychology Club and Psi Beta (PCPB) have had to meet all online. While this has presented us with challenges, it has also opened up our club to many possibilities. Our students wanted to have events, but indicated concern that they wouldn't actually be able to engage with the speakers, as in other online events they often aren't able to speak or raise their hand as frequently as they would like. We decided to create a Women In Psych Panel event.
CATS purpose: See if a statistically significant difference existed on final exam scores (common assessment) between a 16-week online course & an 8-week online course, based on different class lengths of GBS151-Introduction to Business. Given the upcoming HLC visit and emphasis upon institutional learning objectives (ILO's) and class learning objectives(CLO's), I wanted to assess student learning in this top 40 class, where students use critical thinking skills to successfully pass the final exam.
Through conversations with the tutors, a desire was discovered to be better. The tutors know their material very well but wanted to see if there was a way to improve on their delivery style and customer service. I introduced the concept of continuous quality improvement (CQI) which is a culture of never-ending improvement. The assumption is that unless we learn something about what we are doing, we are unlikely to know how to improve it.
The purpose of this CATS is to explore student withdrawal rates and exam scores from six MAT151 courses across two semesters to determine whether Video Lessons or Journal Entries appear to lead to greater student course retention and improved learning.
See comments for update to close the loop.
Please see attached for more information and feedback from attendees for Fall 2019. A new document has been uploaded with the results from the Spring 2020 virtual Now What? luncheon.
In Spring 2018, administrators came back from HLC informing us that we needed to have learning outcomes written and assessed. We had a college wide push over the past year to get these written at the course, program, and co-curricular level. We are struggling with people understanding how everything should be aligned, so the assessment coordinators, champions, and committee members are working to help alleviate confusion.
The Academic Success Center provides in-person tutoring for STEM courses which includes Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Due the discontinuation of Developmental Education courses, there has been a shift in tutoring demand for Gatekeeper and STEM courses in semester Fall 2019. With the collaboration with STEM faculty, the ASC is developing and experimenting new intiatives on how to support the increase in demand of tutoring for these subjects.
We increased the acceptance rate at the Student Conference 2018 while increasing rigor by providing scaffolding and a revise/resubmit process with support structures. Acceptance rates rose significantly from 28.7% in 2017 to 70% in 2018 with added rigor as expressed by MCCCD faculty who had attended previous conferences. Additionally, for the first time, 9 out of 10 MCCCD colleges participated in the conferences.
College Success Week events aim to connect students with members of the College Community to build connections vital to their success. Roary’s Amazing Race was developed this year as a way to re-envision how information about campus resources is provided to students more effectively for campus resource staff and more engaging for students. As students traveled the pathway to earning their free t-shirt, they were given information by each pit stop on upcoming campus events that may interest them (i.e. upcoming shows at the PAC).
Program review is a mission-critical strategic planning process and is one critical element of accreditation. In past years, some departments chose not to complete a program review, while others only did the bare minimum. Some did stellar work. Part of the completion problem was length, along with question redundency, and a lack of accountability for its completion. This year the program review process was redesigned to foster collaboration and accountability between writers and reviewers (Deans/VPs) and to reinforce the application of strategic data for the program.
